Evolution belongs in schools

Just to clarify my definitions of the following:Evolution: is any gradual process of change and development. Historical evolution: says humans evolved over billions of years from a pool of chemicals Macro evolution: Animals adapt and eventually speciate today in order to surviveCreationism: God made everything in 7 days about 5,000 years ago (given popular interpretations of the bible)

A quote from a poster I encountered: ["My question though, is are these truly new species (genetically), or is our working definition of "species" perhaps flawed and thus we do not truly "prove" speciation because we can tinker with things?"] Yes we do it's a matter of perspective, even if we tinker. As basic answer to that question which I will try to support.

How we define: If a species was just determined by DNA.. Then every human is a different species. It's all perspective. Categorization (Scientific Nomenclature) is just a subjective/objective tool for humans to efficiently catagorize and digest information no more than that. of course to keep it consistent and make it teachable there are rules and protocol. Is time really relevant concerning a pattern such as evolution? It's all relative. In this debate I believe that perspective has been used unfairly in pushing creationism. Even to the point of deception. though creationism is not dependant on evolution not being true. Species and Sub species are the most specific in defining species. You can also look into DNA taxonomy for more information.

Time for evolution:All this time that is "thrown at evolution" is relative to events. Some species behaviors accelerate events. To even begin to estimate the timeline for evolution or any extinct species age is pointless unless we decide to use uranium, and carbon decay as the standard.. Anyway it goes we can always say reasonably though not concretely that the decay of uranium roughly 450,000.00 years and the half-life of carbon 14 are useful tools in estimating the age of the earth, and the things on it. neither are constant as we know gravity effects the speed of light and neutrinos effect the rate at which uranium decays Does the age of this earth matter in determining if macro evolution could have taken place. I think not. Time in this case is relative to the earth spinning not individual events that had to do with evolution. There are so many different physics answers to estimating evolutions time in so many ways. It doesn't really matter anyway all the evidence for macro evolution can be seen working today.

Creationists arguments:Revolution Against Evolution, The - features essays, and creationism bibliography.Why I Disbelieve Evolution - assessment of evolution on empirical, not religious, grounds..Now I'm not saying all Christians think like these ones or that they are even in fact Christians but, If anything it just makes them look funny, reasonable crafty, and sometimes manipulative. Notice the assessment of evolution on empirical not religious grounds. On this base I have even seen people say that early hominid fossils were created to support the evolutionists view. I would never deny gods existence. Faith means little to me. To me, taking some things on faith is dangerous. Just as many people in this debate seem to think from both sides of the fence.

Some examples of evolution at work today:dog and a wolf can be bred. They are of different species and the product of their offspring is a hybrid wolf. just to be in with the wording or technical specs for a species. We carry a lot of DNA that doesn't appear to do anything. sleeping genes which can be activated. From DNA we can get a great load of evidence that all points to macro evolution and speciation.I think Darwin's birds iguanas etc. are a petty nice bit of evidence to base any theory off of. If evolution didn't occur why are there no human fossils sealed in precambrian rock like? why arn't all animals found in all kinds of rocks?

The flies (an experiment I know lightly of): Take 200,000 fruit flies. Subject them to environmental stress By putting them in front of a heat lamp and removing their water. next wait till 95 percent of them are dead. harvest the living in time to reproduce and take their offspring for another round repeat these results for 50 generations of fruit flies. At the end of the experiment compare a base sample of fruit flies to the new "selected" fruit flies. The new fruit fly has gained 30 times the flight time without water. put the two flies in an environment where that matters and the regular ones will die or evolve. and the new ones will flourish. I think if you put them in a different environment after that change they will adapt and because of what they eat they will either change color etc. to be efficient in hunting (reproducing/adapting) and in that process speciate by conventional standards.

Change occurred in those fruit flies:Just a question. Why are those "new" fruit flies not a new species? No matter how you look at it change occurred, whatever the change was. Physics determines the animals ability to fly. Whether it be how efficient their cells metabolize waste or utilize energy. This organism is a different organism. Proof that mutations occurred can be proven by taking the original sample of fruit flies subjecting them without conditioning to the same amount of heat and deprive them of water. If even one survives then we can not prove that mutations enabled the "new flies" to survive instead we just made a bunch of one fly. Then of course, for a more intensive examination you can map DNA.How about the mutations and strains of AIDS or any other virus for the sake of argument? Just saying change doesn't occur explain why that happened. Bacteria conjugates and is different than a virus but initially the same in the process just not in it's classification.

Lots of possiblities in this world:In this world even a woman covered from head to toe with hair and a man 8 feet tall can get married to each other (hmm wonder what kind of kids they'd produce) when you look at the change that occurred in that line I'm sure it's pretty easy to conceive how much one species can change in 30 years and were experiencing the heaviest load on resources this earth has ever seen saying scientists aren't full of it. I'm sure we got plenty of interesting mutations to observe in the future. The hairy circus boys from Mexico seem to have a nice following with the ladies. Midgets are accepted in society as little people. Take a dog and a wolf which are different species and produce a hybrid wolf. And yes they are different species. Take a kid with progeria and ask yourself how much they look like standard humans. In this world people don't really document well adjusted beautiful dynamic people for genetic disorders. Genetic disorders are just ones that limit that persons ability to compete with the standard Homo sapiens in the general world though that has definitly been changed with the computer and laws. What does all this say? Evolution is happening before your eyes. Screw looking back 1,000,000,000 years it happens in your back yard. It happens in you.

The fossil records true value in evolution:none. If we see speciation (even thought I think that whole thing is just semantics) today in animals then we can say macro evolution is happening today. and is a fact today even if it wasn't 1,000,000,000 years ago. Is creation still possible at this point. of course. Does historical macro evolution really mean anything today? not really. But if you take all the creatures that have lived look at their skeletons and say you can't see some kind of trend. I don't know what to say. Anyway we discover species every day living and dead. Taxonomists argue every day on how to classify them though they should be more concerned with discovering before what they look for is wiped out.

Quick fact:Scientists estimate of the known DNA in a human approximately 186 mutations occur with each human birth. Source: Scientific American.

Observing mutations:Are genetic defects which are observed in every species not a good example of evolution? Frogs in a pool of water had some pretty crazy mutations occur. Did anyone hear about that? Three legs six legs 4 eyes. lol you name it they found it.

Na na na evolution happens lol:Species go extinct. it's a fact. Take the Dodo Bird Dinosaur and Charcharadon Megalodon a huge ancient shark. The Wooly Mammoth which scientists actually hope to bring back to life cloning in a Jurassic park like fashion. Put all this together and I think even the most simple mind can see. Macro Evolution has plenty of emperical evidence. Speciation has been observed in animals including our own. I think as far as man's interpretation of Gods spoken word goes. It's definitely questionable. And has proved so many times previously. God will exist despite any scientific discovery or anything man does. Given everything i've seen evolution belongs in public schools.

In all this I tried to reason in many different ways from many different stands. Even stooping to the semantic level. Cause I have no pride smile!

Everyone's friend, Pandemic0rgasm Mean evil bastard

I'd like to see sombody explain why evolution shouldn't be in schools.

By the way I will open a forum for people to discuss my stupidity and flame me for speaking so have fun and flame on i'll be interested to see how good any of them are so don't dissapoint me now

(links edited January 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Pandemic0rgasm (edited January 05, 2000).]

One thing that many people seem to realize is that science doesn't prove anything. Science only disproves. You could have thousands of instances where a theory holds true, but just one false instance sinks the theory.

Yeah, he addressed overpopulation pretty well in the tree-hugger thread. Granted it had less to do with it (well, the thread moved to a discussion of natural resources so I guess it did) but he made his point. But we have another thread about that, too.

the reason i brought this forth was because i saw some heavy zig zag ... hey so i contributed... is this a wrong trying to make a right? or a right trying to right a wrong?.. i felt by this post i was saving bandwidth if anything... I'm just loooking for sombody to come in and voice their opinion based on what's up there.

i refuted speciation which was the base of all the arguments against evolution... i defined the terms of evolution macro evolution historical evolution and creation to help clarify the discussion.

As it was the thread wasn't generating any more posts and i didn't feel the discussion was over. should i have posted there? i'm not sure maybe i should have ... didn't look as post go.. since people in here are taking alien butt rape polls.. that i'd really be hurting anything. lol

but if it's really not the way to go hey i'll respect it. If anything i'm just looking for progress on this subject.

I do not think anyone is going to argue that evolution or macro evolution should be taught in schools. However, I would be more then happy to take up the discussion of whether historical evolution should be taught in school. Since you said "Why I Disbelieve Evolution - assessment of evolution on empirical, not religious, grounds.." I think we are in the same boat. I would think the only people who would argue with you would be the pro-historical evolution people.

actually, adam_w, Richard Berg and I would argue with you that evolution does not belong in schools. Because we feel the evidence is lacking. I don't know his reasoning, but mine is out of religious conviction. Oh well!

AdamW i don't think you'll get anyone to conclude historical macro evolution is a fact. because they would only accept it if the theory was perfect and methods beyond any carbon or uranium dating methods were used. The speiciation argument of richard berg and levitron can be pretty soundly debated and examples can be given as i have given above in links. For Levitron in his religeous argument. That can also be debated. There are a lot more holes in the creationist idea than there are in the evolutionists standpoint if we're going to discuss carbon dating methods or any other method in dating an area to give support to any historical significance of the bible. I usually don't have a problem agreeing in general that the historical significance of the new testament is much more founded than that of the old testament. As for Christs body never being found. there are a lot of humans born at the same time who never were found. And even should a body be found from the time who's to say it's christs anyway? That in itself seems like a pretty pointless thing to discuss.

I think a great argument for evolution is that it's only an issue in this country. It's also only an issue because those who disbelieve it choose to speak loudly, when they are the minority. Even the damn pope admits to evolution. He's Jewish, anyway, right?

Although I doubt anyone cares, here's my thoughts/beliefs/ideas on the whole evolution theory.

I believe in evolution, including historical evolution, the big bang theory, but also a twisted version of the creation.

The big bang theory states that all matter in the universe came from one superdense ball of matter, about the size of a period in ten point font. This is where creation comes in, where did that ball of superdense matter come from? The bible's creation theory is crap. The early bible stories are mostly legends, and little stories kids got told so they would shut up. The garden of eden has also come very close to being proven, and I believe that maybe that's where the first humans lived.

God also probably played a role in our evolution so that we evolved the way we did, otherwise we may all have been walking cockroaches.

PandemicOrgasm,Someone else took you to task over the Dogs and Wolves are seperate species argument in the West Virginia Creationism post. Looks like that guy was right and you were WRONG!!!! http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/state/Colorado.htm

IDENTIFICATION OF WOLF-DOGS We learned from Dr. Federoff that the wolf-dog cross is not a true hybrid, as both animals are from the SAME SPECIES. He went on to say that the domestic dog originated from the wolf, and he believes that a domestic dog is a wolf in an arrested stage of development. The only way to identify a wolf-dog cross is from an accurately documented pedigree. This involves taking two known content parents and breeding them to produce a known offspring. All forms of wolf-dog identification are problematic. There is no genotype (the genetic constitution of an animal) or phenotype (the observable appearance of an animal) to distinguish between a dog, a wolf-dog cross and a wolf. All DNA tests to differentiate wolf-hybrids from domestic dogs are subject to challenge. There are no known DNA markers uniquely distinguishable in the wolf that are not present in the dog. Blood tests, skull measurements, and skeletal measurements all have some merit but have not withstood legal challenge.

Dr. Ray Pierotti said the key point is that dogs and wolves are from the same species. The American Society of Mammalogists have reclassified the domestic dog as Canis lupus familiaris (the wolf is classified as Canis lupus), although this taxonomic change has not been recognized by the International Taxonomy Classification. The German shepherd is thought to be a descendent of the European wolf, and the Alaskan malamute possibly from the Alaskan wolf.

Existing methods of identification that are currently available cannot distinguish wolf-dogs from other canines with a high degree of confidence. Combinations of criteria have been used to increase the probability to accurately identify an animal as either a wolf or a dog. Physical characteristics that are currently being used to identify wolves are straight hind legs, no slope of back, prominent sagittal crest, no slope over face and nose, and skull measurements. Skeletal measurements, phenotypical studies, as well as other blood protein, microsatellite, nuclear and mitochondria DNA tests can be of value in wolf dog identification. Dr. Pierotti indicated that even a combination of all these studies have not sustained legal scrutiny in courts of law.

Attached to this report are18 reproduced photographs of dogs, wolf-dogs, and wolves. Each photograph is unlabeled. This test may help to illustrate the difficulty in using phenotypic appearance in determining the genotype of a canine.

Science is all that should ever be taught in American schools. If evolution is the best theory available that does not stem from the bible, then teach it. If there's something else, teach that.

Creationism, as it is taken from the bible, does not belong in schools. It is neither scientific or provable. If you don't like evolution, why does creationism have to be the alternative? Why not teach the tibetan myth on the origins of the universe, or an African one?

It's hardly like there's a dichotmoy between evolutionism and creationism.

I AGREE I AM WRONG (to a degree) but he was not right eitherQuote from steelprophet:[ I believe that Dogs and Wolves are most certainly NOT od seperate Species. One is Canis Lupus the other is Canis Domesticus. All Canis Domesticus is is a domesticated WOLF!!!! ]

my response was gray wolf (Canis lupus) domestic dog (Canis familiaris) but now as you pointed out they are gray wolf (canis lupus) and domestic dog (canis lupus familaris) but hey you can't blame me every time a taxonomy change is made and they don't call me and they were considered separate species. I don't think we're not very far off from seeing speciation in if we havn't already. Dogs at least by looking at all the breeds it shows as a good example of how a species speciates. If you put a weiner dog in the wild and asked it to compete against wolves then I'd have to say they wouldn't even mate and the weiner dog would end up wolf chow. At this point I don't think there has been enough time for basic parts of the DNA to show extreme change but change is pretty subjective. Consider the fact that humans contain 98% of the same components as chimpanzees as i've read. I would also like to point out the classification of Australopithecus Afarensis and Australopithecus Robustus just a little jaw and brain change to show just how little change can mean an entirely different species as far as taxonomy goes. So what I have to say is it's all opinion. If you look at the phonology comparing a toy pinscher with a gray wolf it's like comparing a zebra to a Clydesdale. And I would say the toy pinscher and gray wolf can't breed because of physical limitations and should fertilization happen it wouldn't be viable because it probably wouldn't even come to term. I called up 6 local vets today all Dr DVM's and they told me it was very improbable that a toy pincher anda gray wolf could breed, but they didn't even know taxonomy only 2 could answer my question fully and cite that a wolf was even classified as genus canis. I wonder what rats would show since they were exchanged on ships throughout the ages and actually were blamed for the death of many species on different islands. Anyway I'll get back to you on that one as i have the need to read. One part of defining a species also has to do with isolation of a population. If you look at how zebras are classified equis is the genus then there are three species of zebra. Interbreeding hasn't been recorded. This is how they are in nature. call it behavior. now dogs hmmm maybe theirs a reason why they interbreed so well. Hell when I had a dog the damn thing would hump my leg and it was a female. lol. anyway I think I made my point. http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/zebra.html

[This message has been edited by Pandemic0rgasm (edited January 05, 2000).]

quote:Richard Berg and I would argue with you that evolution does not belong in schools. Because we feel the evidence is lacking.

It occurrs to me that, to follow the guidelines you set out there, that religion should DEFINITELY not be taught in schools. At least we've got bits and pieces to help evolution along. All religion gives us is crusty old documents and old wives' tales (with the odd exception)

I don't think it's a matter of what's provable, but what's the most likely. Me, I think they lost the first page of the Bible. You know, the one that says

quote:"this is a work of fiction. All people and events within are fictional and by no means represent any actual event or person, living or dead."

Your welcome beefy guy... that's the kind of interpretation and thinking i think is good for Christianity. I think trying to disprove evolution just shows how little reason they have for being christaians saying we believe everything from a scientific standpoint. I think the term micro evolution is extremly deceptive.

My stricted apologies for confusing you. I personally do not subscribe to evolution, I am a creationist, period. I also feel that the evidence for evolution is lacking, and therefore should not be taught as it is (as fact - in my experience) in schools.

Richard Berg I cannot speak for. He appears to be a creationist, but I do not know. He has said that he feels evolution should not be taught in schools due to lack of evidence, same as I.

TMM:

that's your opinion, you are welcome to it!

Beefyguy:

ditto!

Black_Obsidian:

Ditto! (Unless of course we are talking about private, religious schools. But I was under the impression we were talking about public schools.)

Xaiax:

I'll say this simply so as not to go into a doctoral dissertation on the historical conformity within the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope has not admitted evolution as factual or how the earth formed. On the contrary, he has admitted that evolution is a viable theorum.

Historically speaking, the RCC has always been a holdout. They adopt an idea and cling to it until they are about to fall, then rush in a change to "correct" their error. Of course one would wonder, why was there an error to correct? Also, the RCC has slowly "evolved" towards embracing more and more secular thought. Most notably with the "reign" of the current Pope. Embracing popular thought just because it is popular is dangerous, and should make one leery and cautious. Regretfully, Catholics have only cheered him on. Ignorant people! Note: I am of course not a Catholic.

Regarding the dog wolf thing. Part of the terms used to define speciation (which there are many ways) is physical limitiation. The wolf and miniture pincher in the wild, could not interbreed. Also, things such as habitat and lifestyle are considered. Such as, the menstral cycle of the animals, or thier activity times (diurnal / nocturnal / whatever).

As far as creationism goes, the main reason christians seems so offended by evolution (to me at least) is that w/o creation and origonal sin, there is no redemption for jesus to die for, thus making the enitre basis of christianity groundless.

Other examples of the dog wolf thing... Ring species. There are species of birds that live around the north pole. The species that border each other can interbreed. As you move apart to others they cant (a can breed with b, b can breed with c, but a cannot breed with c). They all share a common ancesrty. You can see the effects of the regionalism on the species. How about the european starling. In the US, the starling population (which numbers in the 100's of millions) all started from roughly a dozen pairs in new york 100 years ago. Every startling in the US lacks genes that are in europe. Its the founder effect. The birds that established the US pop just didnt have the variety that a larger section would have. How about robins? In europe, they feed in trees. In the us, the same species of robins feeds on the ground. Not much, but it is a lifestyle habit that seperates them.

The process of evolution works wonderfully. Just look at genetic programming. Using the rules of evolution, programmers are training robots by evolving thier code. Scientists are creating new circuits on boards that defy standard rules of electronics, with nothing more then having the board generate offspring (sexual recombination), adding a few random changes, and letting it repopulate. These circits started as NOTHING, and now perform fuctions. Using nothing but evolution.

On historical evolution and the fossil record. I dont really see how you can not consider it. It is the traces of life left on the planet. While at times it's scale may not show extremely gradual change, it does show the slow progression.

As far as schools. It is obsurd to not teach evolution. It is as sound as most other sciences. Its processes hold up to testing, and are used in other fields, sucessfully. Other sciences, which are younger, and have less evidence, are taught. Creationism is myth. Nothing more.

Leavitron, you keep saying you don't see enough evidence supporting evolution for it to be taught in schools. What kind of evidence would you NEED to see to accept that evolution is as valid as any other scientific theory that we have? Or are you rejecting evolution solely on the basis of your non-falsiable faith?

quote:Embracing popular thought just because it is popular is dangerous, and should make one leery and cautious

And hanging on to ancient, evidently false thoughts just because they are traditional and comforting is even more so!

The RCC is at least showing some sense!

quote:Ignorant people!

So, because they accept and applaud their churche's decision to stop an irrational fight against science, they are ignorant? I would say that it is not them who are the ignorant ones.(note: no, I am not catholic).

In showing how Taxonomist go about classifying animals. What i wanted to do is show how irrelivant it is. In that i would like to know exactly what would it take as far as biological physical/DNA change for you to accept speciation and in that accept Macro Evolution; instead of not accepting Historical Macro evolution and accepting Micro evolution? If i havn't shown that the taxonomy is irrelevant to your satisfaction why is that so? Do you think that god's existance is degraded by the acceptance of Macro Evolution and Historical Macro evolution as fact? Why is it important that these collective popular interpretations of God are passed on instead of changing to take evolution into account? How does this challenge the bible?What makes creationists right in saying the world was here only 5,000 years? What point of refrence is used for Gods building of the world in 7 days? Could it be that this refrence point is not linear and that God's idea of a day especially before the earth was spinning was a lot longer than 1 earth day?

[This message has been edited by Pandemic0rgasm (edited January 06, 2000).]

Forgive me if I quibble, but I wish to provide a minor correction in Christian thought.

The penalty for original sin is physical death. Adam paid the price for his original sin with his physical death. Spiritual death (condemnation to hell) is the penalty for our own individual sins. Not sure if this gums the works on your understanding of Christianity or not. Sorry if it does.

quote:Creationism is myth. Nothing more.

You forgot the "IMHO" part.

Geon:

Honestly, I don't know. I guess it'll take direct revelation from God, or His appointed representative, to convince me. Sorry if you see me as close-minded. Even sorrier if this lowers me in your estimation. But it is the way I am.

I am sorry to confuse you. When I started to say "Historically speaking" to Xaiax, I wasn't referring to just evolution.

quote:So, because they accept and applaud their churche's decision to stop an irrational fight against science, they are ignorant? I would say that it is not them who are the ignorant ones.(note: no, I am not catholic).

Like I said, this applies to all changes. If you have no knowledge of the history of the RCC, then you have no grasp of what I am trying to say. Changes on the staus of women, changes on Purgatory, changes on pennance, changes on too many things to list. (Note: even after making changes, the Magesterium still doesn't have it right and in harmony with Scriptures. First off, why need to change it if had it right in the first place? Second, when changing it, why still avoid clear meaning of Scripture?)

Pandemic:

I don't recall questioning your "Taxonomist" posts. Not sure why you responded to me directly. As I said to Geon, though, it would probably take direct revelation from God to convince me of macro evolution. I dunno why, I just do. BTW, a proper Biblical dating via the geneologies and taking into account a litteral 7 day creation would place the earth at about 12-15k years old, not 5k. I have said before in another thread. I don't care how old the earth is. All I know is that God did it His way, in His time. I don't need to understand the particulars right now. Sorry if that seems like a copout - it's not meant to me.

To the question at hand then. Should i conclude that even if you saw speciation that was scientifically proven; you still would not think that evolution should be taught in schools? If so then that's fine i won't bother providing any more information. The reason i responded directly to you is because you're the only one in here besides Richard Berg that said they don't think evolution should be should be taught in schools because they haven't seen speciation. I provided a link that shows speciation.

On the christian beliefs... If that is the punishment of origonal sin (physical death), then what of the jews? What in fact is Jesus offering redemtion for? Not origonal sin, cause we still have physical death. And, if spiritual sin puts you in hell; then, the jews, who are moral, also should be in heaven. So what benifit is there to being christian over jewish? Why accept Jesus if you are a jew? I know this is off topic, sorry.

Heres a side note. The leading mesozoic vertebrate trace fossil paleontologist in south america is a roman catholic priest, funded by the church.

After all this flattering talk in the third person, at last I have to spoil the fun

All the talk of taxonomy bores me. I really couldn't care less how biologists classify species. Just remember: taxonomy is a human construction. Proving that different species can do this or that amounts to very little IMO.

It seems we need more terms. Creating a new kind of dog-wolf (I'll assume PO was right here, just for an easy example) is technically macroevolution. How about we group microevolution, along with examples like these, into horizontal evolution. Evolution that produces a higher life form - vertical evolution - is what I (and I suppose leavitron) want to see evidence of.

In other words, no matter how many legs your frogs grow, I'll shrug. DNA mutations are neither scary (thanks to lots of redundancy) nor rare. However, I think the probability that the mutations that occur in nature can move a species "vertically" (creating a new AND improved species = better eyesight, smarter brain, more able to evade predators, etc.) is fantastic, and the chance that they can account for what we observe as Nature, zero.

PS The overwhelming majority of "naturally" mutated organisms are sterile

Jesus is offering redemption from indiviual's sins. Remember all the Levitican Law? Can do this, can't do that. That Law is impossible for a human to keep. But Jesus did, and in so doing, fulfilled it. He was also slaughtered as a sacrificial lamb, the kind of sacrifice the Jews used to keep to wash them from the stain of the sin in the Law. Now if Jesus was in fact a perfect sacrifice (whereas past sacrifices were not perfect) then He has sacrificed Himself, on our behalf, for our individual sins. Even though they have fallen out of the practice of sacrifices, Jews feel they are still under the Levitican Law, and awaiting the true Messiah. Regretfully, they were too blind to see He has come because He didn't fit into their understanding of God's agenda. Thus, they rejected Him.

Hope that helps.

Richard:

Thank you for stating things (for me) better than I could have stated them! My position exactly!

Well good enough I bored you with taxonomy. I almost put myself to sleep. I wont give you credit though for not using it to base your assumption that speciation has not occurred. For vertical evolution being another highly subjective topic it is presently shown in the fossil record should you give the fossil records or dating methods any merit. Vertical evolution has happened there are many cases. The living example I would give you off hand would be: for the more intelligent brain in my opinion. Anyone who's ever owned a Newfoundland would know they're a lot more intelligent than a wolf. As for the viability of mutant offspring and their ability to reproduce. It is true that many of them are sterile but there is an overwhelming amount of them that are not sterile. Whether it occurred as a result of nature is not even an argument worth discussing if you ask me. I'll say that historical macro evolution is a theory. I will say though in my opinion macro evolution today is a fact. If you should like to argue this further I'm willing but at least bring some valid points for saying any part of macro evolution today has not been seen. Saying that I do not need the bible to tell me the earth is a lot older than 15,000 years historical macro evolution is just that much easier for me to accept as a fact. Now put the bible to those standards of empirical evidence and I'd like to see where the argument for God's creation goes; as it is not nearly as specific as Darwin's. I won't even bother to debate the existence of God. But if creation and Christ is the way and your evidence for it is convincing. Please tear me from the untrue beliefs I hold and show me how taking Jesus Christ as my lord and savior will get me into heaven. Prove to me that it wasn't just a bunch of men who wrote the bible without the commandment of God. Do we come into a lot of problems regarding semantics? Are these people who were so inspired to write what is the new testament just observant of primitive society and the force known as God? Are other religions who observe the existence of God really that different? Why didn't God bring his book or his presence to the rest of the world directly? I won't say assuming any of what I say is wise but logically speaking it seems the best way to go for anyone who hasn't talked to God lately. I myself believe that God by popular view is the anthropomorphic view of the laws of physics and the relation to the self of all these things he/she is unable to articulate. An example of that is inferring premarital sex is wrong because of past spread of disease or just shared observations of how that motivation created vacillation in people being sure and unsure of their love. I think though that anyone with a sophisticated enough thinking skills, self control, and the use of a condom that premarital sex is the first step we take in finding a long lasting soul mate. Providing proof through sin is a way of life taking things on faith and old wives tales is part of a key change observed today. Yet all these principals given in the bible do not exist at a base level in an evolved society where technology has made scarcity non existent. The rules change as the environment changes if you ask me. Are the changes proportionate? I would say for the most part they are because what religion really does in my opinion is articulate observed patterns and attribute their existance to the greater force known as God.

Check out this article. Basically what this points out is the principles of evolution work. All you need is selection, recombination, and mutation. Actually, you dont even need recombination, but it really speeds things up.

First thing to be realized. To explain my 'side' of the discussion, I am a Christian. I believe that God created earth and everything else in 6 days and sat around spinning it for his enjoyment on the 7th. To state my opinion on the original topic. Evolution is a theory that if I recall correctly, DARWIN HIMSELF! denied the truth of before he passed away... interesting that the source of such a train of thought would deny it... Anyway, since I have no source to back up that note, I suppose it's fairly irrelevant.

I don't believe in evolution of course, because I believe in creation, however, I continue to believe in it (creation) because evolution has no roots (as far as I can see). It's great that from a wolf and a dog you can get a dog-wolf. But where did the dog and wolf come from originally? Forgive me..but if you can trace my origins back to an ameba..and the origins of a snake back to the very same one..there HAS to be something off there. Also, there is truth in the idea of 'you never get something for nothing'. If the big bang theory is correct and started it all, then what was there to begin with? Something cannot come from nothing.

Okay. Now for my thoughts on these most recent portion of the discussion.

There is one MAJOR difference that makes the discussion of "Creation vs. Evolution" a very touchy one. This is the fact that Creation is based upon a religon, Evolution is based upon a scientific theory. One is based on thought, one is based on faith.

The problem with arguing faith is that it's just that! It's faith! In other terms that's easy to understand..'I can't see the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind.' So we take it upon faith that 'wind' exists. But we have no proof that wind is anything. It has no physical properties. Whereas from the other side of the arguement, evolution is a (supposedly) logical thought process of the origins of all species. It's a thought process. It's much easier to take an idea for face value when you see each of the components at work on a daily basis. Especially with such lenient laws as to what exactly 'it' is. The laws for evolution are essentially 'gradual change over the passage of time' correct? That includes a lot of little junk that doesn't mean squat, but even so. It's easier to understand something when you can see the pieces of the equations walking and talking. Whereas with creation, you don't see it anymore. It's already happened. You take it by faith that it has happened in the past.

To finish the thought on the original topic: Evolution should not be taught in school. It is a theory. Some take it as fact, some don't. Be that as it may, anything that a child goes to school to learn..aka: 1+1=2.. is presented as fact. And that's what the child understands, what they must learn is of course, fact. Once Evolution is proven to be 100% true, then it may be taught, until then, religion and beliefs of this sort should be kept in the home, and in the heart.

So we should not teach the gravitational theory or atomic theory or the theory of relativity? We should be teaching our children to THINK. Let's present them with the facts and with how some very smart people have interpreted those facts. When I teach sex and genetics in biology, or embryonic development, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, why can't I present a possible explanation (evolution) that ties them all together?

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but I just can't stand it anymore.

quote: The problem with arguing faith is that it's just that! It's faith! In other terms that's easy to understand..'I can't see the wind. I can see the effects of the wind, but I can't see the wind.' So we take it upon faith that 'wind' exists. But we have no proof that wind is anything. It has no physical properties.

Actually, the wind is made up of a few molecules that we commonly refer to as 'air'. It most certainly has substance, and given the right instruments can be observed.

quote: Evolution is a theory that if I recall correctly, DARWIN HIMSELF! denied the truth of before he passed away... interesting that the source of such a train of thought would deny it... Anyway, since I have no source to back up that note, I suppose it's fairly irrelevant.

Not only is it irrelevant, it is untrue. This is a creationist fairy tale, almost as common as 'evolution says we evolved from apes.'

quote: Also, there is truth in the idea of 'you never get something for nothing'. If the big bang theory is correct and started it all, then what was there to begin with? Something cannot come from nothing.

This is phenomenologically incorrect. It doesn't make any sense to ask what came 'before' the beginning of time itself because the word 'before' implies past tense, which somehow assumes that time existed before it existed. The question you are asking is a fallacy and a paradox.

It also creates problems for your beliefs. If 'something' cannot come from 'nothing,' then where did God come from? Nothing? Something else?

Wind actually does have physical properties that's why you can feel it atoms can be seen indirectly (that's why the sky is blue). [B]I wont ever argue about the existence of God for me it is different for everyone in their ability to either perceive it or articulate it.[B] Darwin's theory has evolved a lot since it was presented. I suggest you do a little reading if anything just to stenghthen your Christianity. Don't pour off when you haven't even read anything and Say as if it is a fact that evolution lacks empirical evidence when in fact it does not! As to creation not being possible I didn't say that... it is entirely possible that god makes each laving animal individually and didn't stop doing so after God created the earth in those 6 days. How do you even know that those 6 days should even be interpreted as 6 days?.... God could have simply put that in his forward to the bible... and those 7 days total could actually be eternity. then the history of that total begin the story that is the bible. And inside that eternity it starts with Adam and eve. Just cause your local pastor or priest said so and so many did before him doesn't make it true. God said what he said then after that it was up to mans feeble mind to make sense of it. As for making something from nothing who are you to say it can't happen? who's to say the universe hasn't always been.. just because we as humans expect there to be a beginning or an end doesn't make it so.. time is an invention of man based on movement..

to the rest of you creationists

1:1:28:And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

It says right there we have domination over everything that moves on the earth. subdue it. replenish it and be fruitful and multiply... does it say what factor to multiply by? could be 10 at times could be 1... if it was 1 we wouldn't be facing such population problems.. again just because somebody told you doesn't make it true or that religious leaders in fact are right because they are come as representatives of god or have in fact anything to do with God... the Spanish inquisition and the relative handling of many churches should tell you this..... should you place your life or spiritual growth concerning God in the interpretation of the bible by another man hey that's up to you.... personally I think people who do that are schmucks!... at least science asks we provide proof first. even bishops priests and your local minister are liars cheaters pedophiles sicko's and major hypocrites ........... if you want to take their word for it.... hey that's up to you. Some are extremely respectable people with a true way to help you find Jesus.. some are just animals preying upon the weak for their own benefit. You ever see a Baptist minister that didn't have a gold watch or 4 gold diamond rings? If you are wise enough to take the good with the bad then... i'm sure you have no reason to even continue to read what i write.

In that quote from genesis God doesn't say we can't evolve and that evolution is not ok and even that genetic research and manipulation of genes in animals is not ok

EVOLUTION exists TODAY! Who says God didn't give us DNA for anything else.. we just have the patterns in life that God presented us with. And from that God didn't say thou shalt not alter animal DNA... it is said we have dominion over every creature that moveth on the earth. we can do what we want as long as we are fruitful multiply and replenish the earth... and abide by the commandments.

From the Bible it's wrong in humans... as God did not give man dominion over man..but as that line from genesis says Dogs fish turtles and the like... seemingly it is OK in God's book. And if we use animals and plants to create genetic cures for ourselves that seems to be ok by God too.

I never disputed creation. It is possible. And even from the bible itself doesn't say evolution did not occur. As for any timeline man has accessed for the bible.... Doesn't mean God meant it to be or God directly ordains any interpretation man makes of his word. As we know from the bible man is indeed an imperfect being.

lol smile anyway go on and live your life what works for you it's all good to me but when you get in the way of my ideas or my relationship with reality (which is what I think God is) its a different thing and I'll steam roll your ass with your own bible.

[B]Rawhide[B] bacteria conjugates... what happens in this process is certain cells of bacteria transfer drug resistant DNA to eachother... which makes them resistant to antibiotics. Just FYI if you already didn't know.

As far as my concerns with Christianity go from all I have read on the subject and seen in history etc. Christ came for man to lead him to God directly in a personal relationship. Religeous leaders help you get to Jesus but only Jesus takes you to God. There is no beuracracy in this relationship or any middle men such as bishops priests and ministers... they give you a guide based on what they know nothing more... the rest is for each individual to see with Jesus and God and decide how the bible should be interpreted...... Is science the work of the devil? Why isn't it just a part of God? Maybe it's one of Gods gifts that lets us with each discovery truly appreciate God's grandeur? As with any relationship I have ever been in... it either grows and is good or it sagnates does nothing and dies leaves a sense of loss and sucks. As I look at everything I see. If God created this world then growth is a trend very indicative of his style of existence and in that evolution seems to be just one of Gods facts of life. Anyway when Jesus comes back that whole discussion will be over and we'll know what was up. Till then if every Christian just abides by the commandments and tries to be a good person even if they don't understand the intricacies of life... They are good. I've never met a truly caring and nice person i never liked despite any beliefs they held.

going against popular belief is not a sin. God's creation doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist.

faith in something as it is defined in our language doesn't mean strict adherence to the notions of others.

faith (fth) n.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. Often Faith. Theology. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. A set of principles or beliefs. Now which definition do you like to use when talking about your faith in God? Hopefully all. But discussing the faith you have in a religious leader is something else.

Just off in that direction since I say learning is a good thing.......... [Rev 22:2.41] through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations......If you don't pick up a book while consulting Jesus you subject my kids to a lot of slow healing and in that PAIN.and as I read in the bible if you don't eat of the tree you have forsaken Christ... so go pick up a book and read and I will do the same. the bible says that man in the end will be judged by his deeds!

As i see it the world is perfect. Even though i disagree with you can come from a different perspective i'm glad we do. In that we check eachother and you keep me from believing in anything that's just stupid. I can't think of anything else to discuss on this issue. I'd love to push it further but i lack the imagination. So i'll just be coming back to see what is said. Should Richard Berg or Levitron have anything to say as they were the most fun to push the conversation with. I'll respond.

Berg, what is this about "vertical" evolution? How do you define this? A given species is still around because its physiology is best suited for its environment. It goes extinct because its environment changes faster than it can adapt (volcanos, meteors, concrete, bullets, viruses, drought, etc) Just because one species can see better than another doesn't mean it is more developed. Dogs run faster than humans. Bacteria breed faster and some can live without oxygen.

What do you mean by better eye sight or intelligence? Granted humans are more intelligent than other animals on this planet but what makes one eye better than another? I'll assume that what you probably mean is how do complex organs come about through evolution. There are many examples in the fossil record that indicate how some features might have been developed over time and many generations (the backbone, for example, or vascular plants). You will have to give an example of what you mean of "vertical" evolution that can not be explained.

ok i was just making sure because... the way the argument has gone.. is basically the creationists didn't belive speciation occured (given some subjective taxonomy) i brought the bacteria argument long ago. This whole new verticle evolution curve ball is a new one to me. Kudos to Richard Berg who i think is pretty good on his feet lol. Could you please tell me why the hell dogs are classified as the same species as wolves? I read what that guy wrote but based on the protocol of classification i'm aware of i couldn't understand why. The guy stated that there were no differences that stood up to legal challenge.